The Southern Ocean may be defined as the body of water lying
south of the Antarctic convergence (roughly 55 degrees South and
varying with the seasons), where the swirling frigid waters of
the southern polar region meet the warmer waters of the southern
Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans. Like Antarctica, it contains
vast, unexploited resources that could provide an important
source of international revenue. The region is also a delicate
ecosystem, and its development should be viewed circumspectly.
Antarctica's political status hangs in a delicate balance, with
seven nations claiming sovereignty over parts of the continent,
and various - mainly developed - countries having formed an
Antarctic club. How these questions are resolved will be a key to
developing, protecting, and managing the unique southern polar
region.

With the conclusion of UNCLOS III in 1982, during which an
informal moratorium on discussion of the subject had been
observed, governments, especially of developing countries, have
become more actively interested in the internationalization of
Antarctica. In 1983, the Seventh Conference of the Heads of State
or Government of the Nonaligned Countries stated that exploration
of the area and exploitation of its natural resources should be
carried out for the benefit of all mankind, and referred to
"widening international cooperation in the area."9

The question of Antarctica has since been debated annually by
the United Nations General Assembly. As expected, the countries
with territorial claims on, or interests in, the continent have
called for a continuation of the Antarctic Treaty. The developed
countries have proposed modalities for the possible development
of its mineral resources (e.g., the United States and New
Zealand) and environmental protection through the declaration of
Antarctica as a "World Park" (e.g., France and
Australia). And most less-developed countries have pressed for
declaring Antarctica part of the common heritage of mankind. This
is the official position, for instance, of the Organisation of
African Unity. The Group of 77 is not united on this issue, since
several of them have staked claims on the continent or are
parties to the Antarctic Treaty. The upshot of these discussions
is important, in view of the region's vast resources, including
fisheries and offshore oil and minerals.

Fisheries: Krill and whaling

A major resource of the Southern Ocean is krill, a shrimp-like
crustacean rich in protein, and suitable for both human
consumption and animal feed. About 5 centimetres (2 inches) long
when mature, with antennae adding another 2.5 centimetres (1
inch), krill contains about 15 per cent protein by net weight -
roughly equivalent to beef, shrimp and lobster. Krill are found
in great numbers south of the Antarctic convergence (Map 1) where
phytoplankton flourish in the circular flow of ocean currents and
the upwelling of nutrients during the Antarctic summer.

Estimates of the annual sustainable yield of krill have ranged
as high as 1,000 million tons. More recent estimates are 110 to
150 million tons, which is double the total 1977 fish catch of 70
million tons. Conservative estimates by US scientists are 1 to
2.5 million tons, and by Soviet scientists 15 million tons. These
are based on an ecosystems approach, taking into account the
possible effects of catch levels at all points in the food chain,
krill being a major food source for other fish, whales, birds,
and seals.10 Even these lower estimates portent the
Southern Ocean as one of the world's largest fisheries. Partly as
a result of the decrease in the whale population, the krill
population has grown considerably, and the consensus is that
there is no present danger of overexploitation. Much of the whale
population feeds in the Southern Ocean, and charging for whaling
and krill fishing in this area could serve the purposes of
producing substantial revenues and keeping development at
sustainable levels.

Map
1 Location of krill in the Southern Ocean

With conflicting claims on Antarctica, there are especially
strong grounds for declaring the Southern Ocean rescommunis
- part of the common heritage of mankind. It is questionable
whether claimants can declare EEZs in the Southern Ocean since
some of their territorial claims overlap and the major powers,
including the United States and the Russian Federation, do not
recognize these claims.11 Fishing in the Southern
Ocean could then be the subject of international taxation, user
charges, leases, or the sale of permits to fish.

Offshore oil and others

There is geological evidence of mineral resources, including
gas and oil, offshore the coast of Antarctica. The probable
locations are the Ross Sea, the Weddell Sea Basin, the Amundsen
Sea continental margin, and the Bellinghausen Sea continental
margin. (See Map 2) There are environmental considerations to be
borne in mind, and formidable physical obstacles, especially the
distance and harsh climate of the region. A parallel may be drawn
with the northern polar region, where technology has been
developed for the North Sea, the Beaufort Sea and coastal
Labrador's "Iceberg Alley." If the industrialized
countries engage in offshore oil development off the Antarctic
coast, a system of taxes, user charges, fines, permits, and
leases could be used to help ensure environmentally sound
development and a source of revenues for mankind.

Encroachment of the global commons: The EEZs

From Grotius' time until the early twentieth century,
virtually the entire ocean area was considered a global common in
the sense that the high seas were open to navigation and fishing
by citizens of all nations. The use of the oceans for transport
threatened no one since, except in rare situations of congestion
of a few shipping lanes and fisheries, nothing of value was
scarce. Only the territorial seas which were limited to 3
nautical miles from coastal baselines - and internal and
archipelagic waters were excluded. With the advance of technology
and sophisticated warfare, territorial seas were extended to 12
nautical miles. This was the situation before UNCLOS III.

With the blessings of the Law of the Sea Convention, coastal
States have appropriated "exclusive economic zones"
(EEZs) extending 200 nautical miles (230 statute miles) from
coastal baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea
is measured. In the EEZs, the coastal States have exclusive
rights a) for the purpose of exploring and exploiting,
conserving, and managing the natural resources, whether living or
nonliving, of the waters superadjacent to the seabed and of the
seabed and its subsoil; and b) for managing other activities for
the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone, such as
the production of energy from the water, currents, and winds.12
This was a reversal of the long-accepted doctrine of Mare
Liberum.

Map
2 Known and possible oil resources in the Southern Ocean and
adjacent waters

Under the principles of equity and traditional pre-UNCLOS III
international law, the resources of the oceans, up to and
excluding the territorial seas, should be shared by all mankind.
The reason is clear: they are part of the res communis or,
according to modern concepts of intergenerational equity, part of
the common heritage of mankind. The Convention of the Law of the
Sea tries to take account of these principles by giving
land-locked States certain rights to explore and exploit the
resources of the EEZs, after negotiation with the coastal States.
In practice, however, this does not seem a promising procedure
for the land-locked States. To date, no cases of revenue sharing
have been reached. For this reason, the Convention of the Law of
the Sea was a step backwards in the development of the principles
of international equity.

The EEZs, which contain the shallower waters and the bulk of
the continental shelves of coastal States, contain most of the
currently valuable natural resources, both living and non-living.
The non-living resources, which include hydrocarbons, are
extensive because the continental shelves are much older
geologically than the deep ocean bed. The EEZs also contain the
world's most productive fisheries. This is partly due to the
upwelling of deeper waters along continental shelves, bringing
nutrients toward the surface waters, and, from the viewpoint of
the economics of transport, to their proximity to the coast.

The appropriation by coastal States of the EEZs has
substantially reduced the available global commons, in a manner
similar to the reduction of the commons by the enclosure movement
in Europe. About one-third of the world's oceans are now
encompassed by these zones. These, as well as the continental
shelves, are shown in Map 3. The declaration of EEZs is in
contravention of the principle of res communis, which
forbids nation-states as well as individuals from appropriating
any part of common property as private property.

Although the Convention on the Law of the Sea has given its
blessings to EEZs,13 present and future jurists will
perhaps still recall the words of Vásaquez: "Things which
are imprescriptible by the disposition of the law, may not become
objects of prescription even after the lapse of a thousand years
. .." and Grotius: "Every one perceives that no
usurpation no matter how long continued is competent to intercept
the use of a res communis."14

There is a distinction, furthermore, between the EEZs and the
territorial waters. The coastal States exercise sovereignty over
the latter but not over the EEZs, which Cooper and UNEP, among
others, have called a "privilege conferred by the
international community."15 It is reasonable,
therefore, for the world community to ask the coastal States to
provide a portion of the income they derive from the EEZs to a
global authority for international uses, including assistance to
land-locked developing countries. Such an arrangement, it may be
recalled, was proposed by Nepal in the form of the creation of a
"Common Heritage" Fund. A "gentleman's
agreement" for the sharing of revenues from the EEZs could
still be forged and would not contravene any of the sovereign
rights of the coastal States.

The Law of the Sea Convention has established an institutional
framework for the mobilization of resources from the exploitation
of the deep ocean bed in the form of the International Seabed
Authority, which will be responsible for licensing and collecting
fees for the mining of the deep ocean bed by private firms, and
the Enterprise, which may itself mine it under a parallel system
of seabed mining. It is evident from this discussion, however,
that the sources of revenues that can be derived from the oceans
are much more varied and extensive: they can be from the deep
ocean bed, from fishing on the high seas, from taxes on trade
through freight and over-flight and on passenger traffic, from a
system of taxes, user charges, fines and permits for commercial
activities in the Southern Ocean and others. These resources can
be placed in a general fund for general international use. A
significant part, however, should be allocated specifically for
ocean governance and development. Activities for these purposes
are also myriad: there is a need for regulation, enforcement of
the provisions of the Law of the Sea when it enters into force,
for research on ocean resources and the way it influences climate
and might in the twenty-first century even be used to forecast or
modify climate and regional weather patterns.

The establishment of an Oceans Assembly is described in
chapter 19. It could be a forum for policy making and the
initiation of new activities. To be effective, it should be tied
to a new specialized agency or institutional mechanism linking
the existing bodies concerned of the United Nations system (also
proposed elsewhere in this book), which would deal with policy
implementation and the conduct of day-to-day operations on ocean
affairs.

Such an agency or coordinating mechanism could be made
responsible for the operations necessary for the mobilization of
the ocean resources noted previously, with the exception of those
general resources derived from trade taxes, which in view of
their general nature would require a special body within the
United Nations itself. The Oceans Assembly could provide general
guidance to the oceans' organization and also be responsible for
the allocation of those ocean revenues specifically earmarked for
ocean governance and development. It could also make
recommendations to the United Nations on the use of any surplus
ocean revenues that can be allocated for general purposes.

5. Dolan, E.G. TANSTAAFL (There ain't no such thing as a
free lunch): The Economic Strategy for Environmental Crisis.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971.

6. For instance, see Overall Socio-economic Perspective of
the World Economy to the Year 2000. United Nations, New York,
1990, pp. 50-51.

7. This is an estimate by the United States Academy of
Sciences, cited in Steinberg, E., and A. Yager, New Means of
Financing International Needs. Washington, D.C.: Brookings
Institution. 1978, pp. 106-107. The Academy's estimates were made
before such recent oil spills as the Exxon Valdez and those in
the Arthur Kill of the New York-New Jersey harbour, in Europe, in
the Gulf and in other places.

8. UNEP. Additional Measures and Means of Financing for the
Implementation of the Plan of Action to Combat Desertification:
Study prepared by a group of experts in international financing
in accordance with General Assembly Resolution 32/172. (Issued
initially as UNEP document UNEP/GC.6/9/Add.1, 4 April 1978.)
Submitted to the General Assembly at its thirty-third session
with a Note of the Secretary-General (A/33/260 of 6
October 1978).

10. Nicol, Stephen, "Who's counting on drill?," in Bioscience,
December 1990; and Shapley, Deborah, The Seventh Continent:
Antarctica in a Resource Age. Washington, D.C.: Resources for
the Future, 1986.

11. As a result of a sharp reduction of finfish stocks in the
early 1970s, the French authorities, who exercise sovereignty
over Kerguelen Island, declared an EEZ and banned fishing for two
seasons. This is the only EEZ that has been declared, and it is
doubtful whether the claimants to the Antarctic territory can
declare EEZs under the present international law.

12. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,
art. 56.

13. As a concession to considerations of equity, the
Convention gives land-locked countries equal access to the EEZs
of adjacent coastal states (articles 69 and 79). In that part of
the continental shelf beyond the 200-mile limit, "the outer
continental shelf," the coastal state must contribute to a
system of revenue sharing -1 per cent of the value or volume of
production starting with the sixth year following commencement of
commercial operation, then increasing by 1 per cent annually up
to a maximum of 7 per cent (article 82). Less developed countries
can also lease rights to the exploitation of the EEZs, although
this right does not extend to land-locked countries. See United
Nations Office for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, Introduction
to National Legislation on the Continental Shelf (UN sales
No. E-89.V.5), pp. 5-6. Many do not consider these concessions
sufficient to the gains from the establishment of the EEZs.

14. Both quotations are from Grotius' Mare Liberum.

15. UNEP, Additional Measures and Means of Financing for
the Implementation of the Plan of Action to Combat
Desertification. op. cit. and Cooper, Richard, "The
Oceans as a Source of Revenue." In Bhagwati, J.N., ed. The
New International Economic Order: The North-South Debate.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1977, pp. 108 and 111.

During the last two decades the expansion of the multiple uses
of the oceans and the degradation of the marine environment have
accentuated the need of enhancing international cooperation and
coordination in the field of management, and protection of marine
resources. A significant number of international legal
instruments have been adopted to that effect, and existing
intergovernmental organizations have been assigned with specific
responsibilities in ocean affairs. New predominantly regional
institutions, have been established, and at the same time
institutional adjustments made at national level. Thus, an
impressive legal and institutional network has been set into
operation in the management and protection of the marine
environment; this wide network could provide a viable basis for
the global governance of the oceans. Efforts have been made to
achieve better coordination between ongoing programmes, projects,
and activities on ocean affairs undertaken by competent
international organizations. In this context, it should be noted
that an effective global management regime of the oceans would
require a two-dimensional integration: horizontal and vertical.

The horizontal integration would reflect the interdisciplinary
and interdependent nature of ocean affairs. It requires a
coordinated intersectoral approach in dealing with a wide range
of issues relating to the management of the oceans and their
resources. We can identify four main problem areas which by their
nature imply global cooperation and coordination:

1. Developmental and related issues, including the
functioning of the worldwide system of navigation, management
and conservation of highly migratory species, sustainable
technology development, marine scientific research, and other
economic issues of global significance.

3. Peaceful uses of the oceans and enhancing international
security through special agreements on naval arms control and
disarmament, confidence-building measures and reduction of
naval operations.

4. Legal problems with special emphasis on universal
adherence to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea of 1982 (the 1982 Convention), further codification and
progressive development of the Law of the Sea, elaboration of
guidelines on integrated global ocean management,
harmonization and unification of the rules of maritime law,
and promotion of international environmental law,
particularly in the field of the protection of the marine
environment.

The vertical integration of ocean management comprises an
interface of national actions, regional and global cooperation.
International organizations and inter-agency bodies provide
multilateral institutional mechanisms for coordination,
supervision, decision-making and implementation of policies, and
generally agreed rules relating to ocean affairs.

The Report of the World Commission on Environment and
Development in assessing the requirements for ocean management in
the next century states that:

- The shared resources characteristic of many regional
seas make forms of regional management mandatory.

- The major land-based threats to the oceans require
effective national actions based on international
co-operation. (WCED. Our Common Future, p. 264)

Therefore the effective governance of the oceans requires both
horizontal and vertical integration with the relevant
institutional implications deriving from the nature of the marine
ecosystems and the sustainable development of their resources.
This is the leading principle determining the concept of an
"Ocean Assembly" as a world forum for the consideration
of issues of common interest and coordination of national,
regional, and global efforts on ocean affairs.

The existing situation has been characterized in most
instances with sectoral approach; fragmented national, regional,
and international institutions, often guarding their special
domain of responsibilities; prevailing zonal approach in dealing
with sea management and protection of the marine environment;
"effects oriented" and "clean-up pollution"
control measures; and discrepancy between the environment and
development components of ocean policy and planning.

As the World Commission on Environment and Development pointed
out:

The integrated and interdependent nature of the new
challenges and issues contrasts sharply with the nature of
the institutions that exist today. These institutions tend to
be independent, fragmented, and working to relatively narrow
mandates with closed decision processes. Those responsible
for managing natural resources and protecting the environment
are institutionally separated from those responsible for
managing the economy. The real world of interlocked economic
and ecological systems will not change; the policies and
institutions must. (Our Common Future,
p. 310)

This assessment is even more valid to ocean governance, for in
the field of ocean affairs the interaction between environment
and development is much more evident.

A similar conclusion is contained in the Report of the
Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on Environment
and Development which states that:

Management units for ocean and coastal affairs are
generally weak and disperse. They currently reflect agencies'
sectoral responsibilities rather than boundaries of coastal
systems. There is now a widespread recognition that sectoral
approaches to managing coastal zones fail to resolve
conflict. The responsibilities of national agencies must
integrate the environmental limits of the ecosystems under
management with the sectoral economic instruments."
(Doc. A/CONF. 151/PC/69 of 4 July 1991, para. 11, p. 4. See
Chapter 17, Agenda 21.)

The perception that problems of ocean space are closely
interrelated and need to be considered as a whole led, at an
advanced stage of the negotiations in UNCLOS, to the recognition
that institutional adjustments were required to meet the new
challenges of ocean governance. The traditional sectoral
structures of public administration could not adequately meet the
new requirements of the expanding use of oceans and their
resources. The same deficiency was noticeable, in most instances,
in the activities of international organizations when dealing
with ocean affairs.

During the Seventh session of UNCLOS in 1978 three formal
proposals referred to various institutional implications as a
follow-up of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
The delegation of Peru proposed the establishment of an
International Commission on the Law of the Sea (Doc. A/CONF.62/L.
22 of 10 April 1978). This Commission was contemplated "as
an intergovernmental body responsible for the examination of
problems which arise in connection with the application of the
provisions of the present convention, as well as from situations
not covered by it." Members of the Commission had to be ipso
facto all States Parties to the convention. The functions and
powers of the Commission were confined to the legal field which
is evident by the name of the Commission. The Commission was
envisaged "as a forum for the examination of proposals aimed
at improving or supplementing the provisions of the present
Convention and for the preparatory work of conferences convened
with the view to amending or revising the Convention." It is
obvious that the proposal of Peru preceded the adoption of the
provisions on the amendment of the Convention, the present
articles 312, 313 and 314 of the 1982 Convention which provide
for a different procedure for amending the Convention.

Nevertheless, leaving aside the outdated suggestions of a
procedural nature, the ideas reflected in the proposal of Peru
were an indication of the keen interest given to some legal and
institutional problems relating to the implementation of the Law
of the Sea Convention. When listing the powers and functions of
the proposed International Commission on the Law of the Sea
special reference was made to the "development,
consolidation and coordination of the activities of international
organizations related to marine affairs through recommendations
of a legal nature on conceptual, technical or operational
questions, including the preparation of standards, general
guidelines and uniform methods of interpretation or
application." It was also contemplated that the commission
may "serve as a forum for the examination of proposals aimed
at improving or supplementing the provisions of the present
Convention."

The most closely connected with the idea of a "World
Ocean Forum" or an "Ocean Assembly" was the
proposal of Portugal regarding periodic conferences on
international ocean affairs (Doc. A/ CONF, 62/L.23 of 4 May
1978). In fact it was a most cogent initiative responding to the
new requirements for better cooperation and coordination in order
to overcome the sectoral approach in ocean management. The core
of the Portuguese proposal was the provision authorizing the
Secretary-General of the United Nations to convene a periodic
conference open to all States Parties to the Convention and
entailed undertaking "a comprehensive review of the manner
in which the regime established by the convention is being
applied, with the exception of part XI and its annexes;"
(this exception follows from articles 154 and 155 of the 1982
Convention containing special rules for undertaking the review of
the system of exploration and exploitation of the resources of
the Area). It further provided that in the exercise of its powers
the review conference "shall take into account major trends
in ocean uses, new technologies, progress in scientific
knowledge, management and protection issues of international
significance, institutional and legal developments and other
relevant aspects of international ocean affairs." Another
important function of the proposed conference was, in a special
session "to review the state of ratification of the
Convention and, if necessary, to propose measures to encourage
further participation."

In contrast to the above-mentioned Peruvian proposal, the
periodic conference under the Portuguese proposal was not
empowered to amend the Convention. This provision is in
accordance with the procedural rules on the amendment of the
Convention, embodied in its final clauses.

The Portuguese proposal was followed by another proposal (Doc,
A/CONF. 62/30 of 18 May 1978) also submitted by Portugal,
cosponsored by seventeen other delegations from all geographical
regions (from Western Europe - France, the Netherlands and Spain;
Eastern Europe - Bulgaria and Poland; Africa - Cape Verde, Egypt,
Kenya, Liberia, Morocco and Senegal; Asia - Indonesia, Iran and
Nepal; and Latin America Chile, Mexico and Uruguay). The main
purpose of this document was to draw to the attention of UNCLOS
that "the implementation of the Convention of the Law of the
Sea calls for an active and increased role of the appropriate
international organizations with competence in ocean affairs,
especially those which are part of the United Nations
system." The proposal also noted that:

Further strengthening of these organizations and
increased cooperation among them are required, so as to allow
Member States to benefit fully from the expanded
opportunities for economic and social progress offered by the
new ocean regime and to meet their responsibilities in
scientific research, protection of the marine environment,
transfer of technology, conservation and management of
resources, and other relevant activities.

This comprehensive approach to ocean affairs was supported by
two important suggestions of institutional character. First,
"to consider ways and means of rationalizing further the
work of the international organizations through the improvement
and strengthening of coordinating mechanism," and
"improve inter-agency coordinating mechanisms with
particular regard to the need for harmonizing the discharge of
the functions of the international organization." Secondly,
to establish "on broad geographical basis, an ad hoc study
group of not less than 14 or not more than 20 eminent persons
intimately acquainted with international ocean affairs to review
and identify gaps in the present institutional arrangements in
the field of international ocean affairs, evaluate the
institutional implications resulting from the implementation of
the Convention, and formulate alternative proposals aimed at
improving where appropriate, the effectiveness of the United
Nations system in the sector of ocean affairs, and on its gradual
adjustment to the functions referred to in the Convention."

The above-mentioned three proposals on the institutional
implications of the new ocean regime, taken together could have
provided a sound basis for effective cooperation and coordination
in the management of the oceans on global level. They would have
contributed to using the 1982 Convention as an appropriate legal
and institutional framework for global ocean governance. While
receiving encouraging support from many delegations in UNCLOS
these proposals were overshadowed by the negotiations on some
critical issues relating to the deep seabed mining regime and
other controversial issues. Thus, institutional arrangements in
ocean management lost momentum and became a matter of research
and academic debate. Several studies on the subject were
undertaken, including some within the framework of the
International Ocean Institute (IOI) and the Pacem In Maribus
(PIM) conferences.

Present developments on national, regional, and global levels

Confronted with practical problems of discharging their
respective responsibilities, in the context of a new ocean regime
under the 1982 Convention, various UN agencies undertook moderate
institutional adaptations. Cases in point are, for instance, IOC
- in relation to marine scientific research, ocean services,
regional cooperation, training, education, and mutual assistance;
IMO - in respect of international shipping, safety of navigation,
and pollution from vessels; UNEP - on regional seas management
and protection of the marine environment through its Ocean and
Coastal Areas/Programme Activity Centre (OCA/PAC) coordinating an
extensive global network of regional seas-related programmes. In
the United Nations the Office for Ocean Affairs and the Law of
the Sea (UN/OALOS) was established with a wide range of
responsibilities, incorporating functions previously assigned to
other organs. Other international organizations such as FAO,
maintained their traditional structure at global level but
introduced adjustments in their regional subsidiary fishery
bodies.

These developments have proved that the magnitude, complexity,
and urgency of environmental problems, and the long-term
solutions to the critical issues of ocean management, require a
comprehensive integrated approach and coordinated efforts of
governmental agencies, intergovernmental institutions with the
increasing involvement and participation of the non-governmental
sector on the national, regional, and global levels.

Institutional adjustments to deal with ocean affairs at the
national level have made surprisingly limited progress during the
last two decades, with a few exceptions. In fact, even in those
countries which are signatories or have ratified the 1982
Convention, the traditional sectoral approach continues to
dominate national administration. This is so despite increasing
and intensive multiple use of the oceans and the growing
difficulties faced in ocean management and environmental
protection.

Rather than attacking the problem at its roots, and
undertaking an in-depth restructuring of their marine affairs
institutions, governments have tried, on the one hand, to improve
the efficiency of existing institutions and, on the other hand,
to develop cooperation among them with a view to responding in a
more efficient way to specific issues. Under crisis, ad hoc
arrangements have been established, involving the various
departments concerned. This was done in connection with
large-scale marine pollution accidents having detrimental
ecological and socio-economic impacts.

Nevertheless, some governments, considering the advantages of
more stable and efficient mechanisms to deal with national ocean
affairs on an intersectoral basis, moved a step forward. One
should refer to the creation of Ministeries of the Sea, some of
them with short duration, as was the case of France, Norway,
Chile, Peru, and Portugal. In the last case, a Ministry of the
Sea has recently been reestablished. Other countries, like India,
followed a more decentralized approach based on the principle of
a central formulation of policies and priorities in ocean
affairs. This was supported by funding and coordinating
procedures, aimed at the mobilization of national capabilities in
the relevant fields, through involvement in the process of
decision and implementation of public administrations and
institutions concerned. The Department on Ocean Development of
India proved to be an effective mechanism with some striking
successes, namely regarding India's role in deep sea research and
exploitation, and research in Antarctica.

In spite of the need for vertical interface at national,
global, and regional levels, and their mutual impact and
feedback, effective and stable progress in international ocean
affairs has been hampered up to now by the institutional inertia
at national level, as well as by the vested interests of existing
organizations and agencies. Therefore the concept of an
"Ocean Assembly" at national level involving all the
parties concerned, is of particular practical significance.

The UNCED, inspired by the principle of sustainable
development, has imposed a critical review and evaluation of the
state of ocean resources and the marine environment, as well as
the need to urgently respond to some new forms of degradation and
to consequences of human activity, such as that resulting from
the greenhouse effect and related sealevel rise. UNCLOS and UNCED
are, thus, closely interlinked components, and part of a process
of new governance of international commons, including ocean
governance.

Institutional arrangements at regional level have been aimed
mainly at responding to immediate needs for improved management
and cooperation in selected areas, for example, fisheries,
research, and monitoring. In a few cases, joint efforts between
organizations having complementary responsibilities were
undertaken, namely in connection with marine environment
protection and related monitoring, and scientific advice (e.g.
between IOC and UNEP regional subsidiary bodies). In this context
special reference should be made to the pioneer approach,
inspired by the 1982 Convention, under the Indian Ocean Marine
Affairs Cooperation (IOMAC), involving Member States of the
region, including land-locked ones, as well as major user States.
Initiated at a conference convened in Colombo in 1985 by the
Government of Sri Lanka and further developed at IOMAC-II
(Arusha, Tanzania, 1990), IOMAC led a formal agreement signed by
nine countries and ratified so far by five. The new institution
intends, inter alia, to promote the integration of the
marine sector into national development strategies, the
harmonization and strengthening of management arrangements, and
cooperation amongst marine affairs institutions of Member States
within the concept of an integrated ocean management. (See Hiran
Jayewardene chapter 13)

In our view, IOMAC reflects adequately the new philosophy and
the need for an enhanced ocean governance based on international
cooperation provided under the 1982 Convention. The
establishment, for these purposes, of "national focal
points" also reflects the need for simultaneous and parallel
action at national level. It would be advisable for similar
arrangements to be undertaken by the organizations of the United
Nations system involved in ocean affairs and carrying out
substantive activities in the respective region. Thus, IOMAC
offers a possible institutional model for dealing with
international ocean affairs at regional level. In fact, it
performs similar functions to those of a regional Ocean Assembly.

Notwithstanding the outcome of the conference, the preparatory
work for the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development (UNCED) brought attention to the fact that:

There are numerous global and regional institutions
with competence in marine issues. A comprehensive convention
and a number of other legal instruments deal with the various
aspects of ocean affairs. However there is no appropriate
global forum where the international community can consider
interrelated problems as a whole, and thus identify important
issues, priorities and strategic planning needs, promote
intra- and interregional cooperation, and mobilize funding.
There are also several mechanisms for United Nations system
cooperation and coordination, but none at present has the
necessary comprehensive responsibilities. A global forum for
intergovernmental discussion and mechanisms for coordination
among the relevant agencies and bodies concerned with
ocean-related activites could provide an integrated process.
(Doc.A/CONF.151/PC/42/Add.6 of 3 July 1991, para. 54, pp.
15-16)

This brief overview of the evolving idea of global
institutional arrangements on ocean issues may provide the
background for determining the concept and institutional features
of an "Ocean Assembly."